{"title":"Clinician experiences with using assistive technology in brain injury rehabilitation: a survey of clinician capability, attitudes, and barriers.","authors":"Kavya Pilli, Brendan Worne, Grahame Simpson","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2023.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise in assistive technology (AT) solutions to support people with an acquired brain injury (ABI) has warranted clinicians to build capability in assisting clients to select goal-centred AT. The study explored, amongst ABI clinicians, (a) capability, attitudes, and barriers with AT implementation, (b) age-related differences in technology self-efficacy and capability (c) strategies to support AT use in rehabilitation and (d) thematic analysis of AT-related experiences.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Mixed methods design. Online survey circulated to ABI clinicians across New South Wales, Australia, comprising purpose-designed items as well as the Modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (MCSES; range 0-100).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinicians (<i>n</i> = 123) were evenly distributed across decadal age groups. The majority were female (90%, <i>n</i> = 111) and one-third were occupational therapists.Clinicians scored strongly on the MCSES (Mdn = 76, IQR = 19), with younger age groups significantly associated with higher scores (H[3] = 9.667, <i>p</i> = .022). Most clinicians (92%) were knowledgeable of mainstream technology for personal use, but over half (65%) reported insufficient knowledge of suitable AT for clients. Clinicians reported positive attitudes towards AT, however, time to research and develop proficiency with a range of AT was the primary barrier (81%).Thematic analysis suggested that whilst the ideal AT experience is client-motivated requiring multidisciplinary guidance, the clinician role and experience with AT is evolving, influenced by rapid technological advancement and extrinsic opportunities to access AT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst clinicians have positive attitudes towards AT, there is a gap in clinician implementation. There is need to support further resources to build clinician capability and access to AT.</p>","PeriodicalId":41760,"journal":{"name":"SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT","volume":"52 1","pages":"185-203"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2023.5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The rise in assistive technology (AT) solutions to support people with an acquired brain injury (ABI) has warranted clinicians to build capability in assisting clients to select goal-centred AT. The study explored, amongst ABI clinicians, (a) capability, attitudes, and barriers with AT implementation, (b) age-related differences in technology self-efficacy and capability (c) strategies to support AT use in rehabilitation and (d) thematic analysis of AT-related experiences.
Method: Mixed methods design. Online survey circulated to ABI clinicians across New South Wales, Australia, comprising purpose-designed items as well as the Modified Computer Self-Efficacy Scale (MCSES; range 0-100).
Results: Clinicians (n = 123) were evenly distributed across decadal age groups. The majority were female (90%, n = 111) and one-third were occupational therapists.Clinicians scored strongly on the MCSES (Mdn = 76, IQR = 19), with younger age groups significantly associated with higher scores (H[3] = 9.667, p = .022). Most clinicians (92%) were knowledgeable of mainstream technology for personal use, but over half (65%) reported insufficient knowledge of suitable AT for clients. Clinicians reported positive attitudes towards AT, however, time to research and develop proficiency with a range of AT was the primary barrier (81%).Thematic analysis suggested that whilst the ideal AT experience is client-motivated requiring multidisciplinary guidance, the clinician role and experience with AT is evolving, influenced by rapid technological advancement and extrinsic opportunities to access AT.
Conclusions: Whilst clinicians have positive attitudes towards AT, there is a gap in clinician implementation. There is need to support further resources to build clinician capability and access to AT.